Earlier this morning we wrote about the obvious sampling bias in the latest ABC / Washington Post poll that showed a 12-point national advantage
for Hillary. Like many of the recent polls from Reuters, ABC and The Washington Post, this latest poll included a 9-point sampling bias toward
registered democrats.

"METHODOLOGY – This ABC News poll was conducted by landline and cellular telephone Oct. 20-22, 2016, in English and Spanish, among a random
national sample of 874 likely voters. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are
36-27-31 percent, Democrats - Republicans - Independents."

Of course, while democrats may enjoy a slight registration advantage of a couple of points, it is no where near the 9 points reflected in this latest
poll.

Meanwhile, we also pointed out that with huge variances in preference across demographics one can easily "rig" a poll by over indexing to one group
vs. another. As a quick example, the ABC / WaPo poll found that Hillary enjoys a 79-point advantage over Trump with black voters. Therefore, even a
small "oversample" of black voters of 5% could swing the overall poll by 3 full points. Moreover, the pollsters don't provide data on the
demographic mix of their polls which makes it impossible to "fact check" the bias...convenient.

the simple sample ...

Now, for all of you out there who still aren't convinced that the polls are rigged, we present to you the following Podesta email, leaked
earlier today, that conveniently spells out, in startling detail, exactly how to rig them. The email starts out with a request for recommendations on
"oversamples for polling" in order to "maximize what we get out of our media polling."

I also want to get your Atlas folks to recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February. By market, regions, etc. I want to get
this all compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling.

The email even includes a handy, 37-page guide with the following poll-rigging recommendations. In Arizona, over sampling of Hispanics and Native
Americans is highly recommended:

That's the Democratic machine in action. We've had that in Chicago for decades now. As a result, Republicans won't even bother to run for office.
The Democratic Machine has delivered to the residents of this city, the highest sales taxes, property taxes, and crime rate combination, of any major
U.S. city.

If Americans make the mistake of electing "Godmother" Hillary as President, the entire nation will be in even worse shape than the City of Chicago.

That's the Democratic machine in action. We've had that in Chicago for decades now. As a result, Republicans won't even bother to run for office.
The Democratic Machine has delivered to the residents of this city, the highest sales taxes, property taxes, and crime rate combination, of any major
U.S. city.

If Americans make the mistake of electing "Godmother" Hillary as President, the entire nation will be in even worse shape than the City of Chicago.

Jeez, you guys are really incredible. Both oversampling and undersampling can be done to CORRECT a dataset. I clicked through and read the entire
email chain. Without the attached file, it is impossible to know what oversampling they are referring to.

Also, Podesta does not control the polling that gets published by the media. He's talking about the Dem's own INTERNAL polling, which of course they
would WANT to be as accurate as possible.

I'm getting really sick of you guys just straight making stuff up. Every single time you guys trot out one of your alt-right news sources about the
leaks, I click through to the original email, and almost always find the main thesis is not supported.

Do you do this stuff on purpose?

Or do you honestly believe everything published by media outlets who are trying to generate as many pageviews as possible among an extremely gullible
population?

I'll go have a look then. I generally don't read the entire article, you know. I click through to the source after reading their main thesis, to see
if it's supported. In this case, I didn't realize they were sourcing more than the email. Generally they are not.

Well, this explains a lot of the disparity in the polls then,
the ones the Clinton Campaign can taint, and then the few
they cant.

Shouldn't be surprised, they know they are stuck with a dog
of a candidate and simply can not win, unless it is all rigged.

It is interesting how Podesta, Huma and other leaders on Hillary's team speak so poorly of her in their personal e-mails, but are still willing to
dump their morals overboard, to help the witch steal this election. It's too bad that their schemes and rigging, aren't going to work. Good always
defeats Evil..sooner or later.

So far, I don't see anything to suggest that Atlas is trying to get them anything except the most accurate dataset possible. Remember, this is polling
to be used BY the Dems, not by the MSM. Why would they want it to be biased.

Do any of you guys have any background in statistics?

Here are a few recommendations from the Pamphlet. Notice this is all about figuring out who to target for what kind of messaging so they can reach and
influence voters.
Consider modeling independents to discern how many of them are strong Republican, strong Democrat, or swing. Statewide Democrats since 2002 have
carried the independent vote, but the margins have been too narrow. It will be critical to move independents 12 to 15 points to bring the Democrats
closer to 65% and 66%.


In 2008, there must be a concerted effort to target moderate Republican women early and often, particularly those in Maricopa and Pima counties.
Historically, campaigns communicated heavily with moderate Republican women in rural Arizona. Polling should be conducted to determine whether or not
this should be expanded to portions of Pinal and Yavapai counties.


VBM poll. In 2006, the coordinated campaign (using Grove Insight) conducted a poll of potential VBM targets to determine the right messaging for the
various groups within the VBM universe. This was very effective in developing the best message for this targeted universe

Despite my haste in penning my original reply, it looks like I was correct. You know, it shouldn't be POSSIBLE for me to be correct after such an
egregious oversight, but it turns out that these alt-right news sources do not care about the truth, so apparently it's pretty safe to just assume
they are lying, especially when it comes to the Podesta leaks.

Here's some more information from the Atlas recommendations, in case anyone in this thread actually gives a rat's butt what the DATA is really all
about.

In short, it's data to be used internally by the Dems, and of course the goal is ACCURACY, not OBFUSCATION.

Focus groups are important in NM, given the importance of authenticity to NM voters. Focus groups should be done early in the campaign and again later
to test ads. Given the large percentage of the population living in the Albuquerque metro area, most of the focus groups conducted in New Mexico occur
in Albuquerque. The facility there can also attract people from the surrounding areas. Las Cruces and Santa Fe are the other two areas where pollsters
often do focus groups. Outside of those three areas, the towns are small and spread out, making it harder to conduct focus groups. Of course, Anglo
and Hispanic focus groups should be done separately with appropriate moderators.


Democratic candidates need to persuade conservative Democrats to remain loyal to the party. This might require a persuasion program targeting these
Democrats with a specific regional message. Albuquerque Democrats, Santa Fe Democrats, and rural Democrats all respond to unique messages.


Democratic candidates in 2008 should look to increase the Democratic vote from women. Consider doing a research project to determine how best to do
that.


Consider doing a Hispanic only baseline survey in early 2008 to accurately capture the mood of the community and draw out the differences between
Northern Hispanics in CD3 and Southern Hispanics in CD2. Bush greatly improved in his share of the Hispanic vote, winning 44% as opposed to 32% in
2000. A Democratic priority should again be to win close to 70% of the Hispanic vote in 2008. After the baseline survey, re-assess after the June
primary. Poll every two to three weeks. Then, poll weekly for the last five weeks.


Bush scored strong gains in voters under the age of 60, while older voters remained strongly Democratic in 2004. This is an important trend to watch
in the future as it runs somewhat counter to national trends. Consider a research project to determine how Democrats can improve their support from
young voters in NM, as it may be more difficult to maintain an 11% lead among older voters.


A micro-targeting survey should be considered given the difference between Democratic registration and Democratic voting. The survey should probably
take place early in the summer after the primaries, as we would want to generate candidate scores for both presidential and Senate candidates.

21
The survey should take place relatively soon after the primary, as field campaigns will want to use the data in their summer base vote and persuasion
programs.

This stuff is incredible that is coming out. I mean, equate this to a report being released that said there were remote control planes used on 9/11 or
there was as 2nd shooter in 63. Things, that you can look at and talk about and think may occur but when the curtain is truly pulled back it is nuts.
Then, you have the media saying it is stolen material. The DNC saying that they are 'non credible' because it was the Russians. However, a stolen tax
return shows up at a NY newspaper and it is in the news for 4 days. Again, something 'actually' illegal but its ok. Are people really still that dumb?

It is not even about Trump. It is about how the establishment is not only farking us from behind but they are recording it and making us pay for it
and put in the hard work. Vote for ANYONE other than HIllary Clinton is where I am at at this point. Vote Jill is you want a woman but this will be
the last time I feel that we will be able to have a multiple party system. The GOP has showed it's hand. The ones in control decide there should be
one party and what do we do then? Are you going to tell me it could not happen? They are already one party and we have them on the ropes but there are
still those who turn a blind eye.

HItler had no friends either. Most megalomaniacs do not. I mean, no one thought it odd Bill was not at the dinner with her the other night? Her own
husband won't go to one of the most important events in race. It is a tradition and where is he? I have a few ideas but will leave those for the
mud-pit.

And one final note. If someone wanted to oversample for the purposes of creating a biased poll as the OP suggests, they wouldn't need an expensive
analysis from a third party organization. They'd just need to OVERSAMPLE registered Democrats.

Clearly, whoever wrote the article cited in the OP either doesn't know or doesn't care about the following:

1) Both oversampling and undersampling can be used to correct a dataset
2) The Atlas recommendations have nothing to do with the MSM polls we are exposed to via various polling organizations
3) The Atlas recommendations are for DEM Internal consumption and are geared toward helping the Dems target and persuade voters

It is interesting how Podesta, Huma and other leaders on Hillary's team speak so poorly of her in their personal e-mails, but are still willing to
dump their morals overboard, to help the witch steal this election.

So true, I wonder how that is going with all of them on "With Her Express"...
Huma and Podesta do not look too happy as of late.

No they don't know anything about the scientific use of statistics, no, rigging the polls is not what any email is talking about, yes, this is their
own internal polls (so why would they want to lie to themselves) etc. etc. etc.

You are watching the most insidious form of dishonesty take root in some of the right-wing (drifting toward alt-right): they're now believing their
own lies.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.